By: Daure David
Former President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent trip to Paris to defend Nigeria before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) regarding the $2.3 billion arbitration case has sparked intense debate across political and public spheres.
Buhari was in Paris to address allegations made by Sunrise Power, which accused the Nigerian government of breaching a contractual agreement. The case, centered on a dispute related to the $2.3 billion gas power project, has drawn significant international attention, with Sunrise Power seeking redress for the alleged breach. The former president was reportedly tasked with defending the nation’s position in the matter before the ICC.
However, the former president’s trip has not been without controversy. A statement by his former media aide defending his actions has been met with criticism from various political analysts and opposition groups. They claim that Buhari’s defense was more about protecting his own interests, particularly in light of ongoing corruption allegations, rather than purely defending the country.
Political analysts have sharply criticized the narrative surrounding the trip, with some suggesting that Buhari’s primary motivation was not national interest but rather safeguarding his personal legacy. One analyst, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated, “It is clear that the trip was not about Nigeria’s defense but about protecting the former president’s own name and legacy.”
Furthermore, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and several political commentators have voiced their concerns over Buhari’s selective adherence to international court rulings. Critics argue that while the former president was quick to obey the orders of an international body, he failed to demonstrate the same respect for Nigerian courts during his tenure. “If the courts of Nigeria had invited him to answer charges, would he have complied? This selective respect for foreign courts while disregarding Nigerian law is deeply concerning,” said a senior PDP official.
The debate has raised questions about the integrity of leadership and the rule of law under Buhari’s administration. Critics argue that his actions in Paris reflect a broader pattern of inconsistent governance and an unwillingness to be held accountable by domestic institutions.
In contrast, supporters of Buhari have defended the trip as a necessary step to protect Nigeria’s interests in the international arena. They argue that it was essential for Nigeria to be properly represented in the arbitration case, which has significant financial implications for the country.
As the dust settles from the former president’s Paris visit, the controversy surrounding his actions appears far from over. The focus now shifts to whether Buhari will be held accountable for his past actions domestically, and whether Nigerian courts will play a more prominent role in holding former leaders to account.
The legal and political fallout from Buhari’s actions will likely continue to unfold in the coming months, with the national conversation centered on governance, the rule of law, and the balance between international and domestic legal obligations.